Despite that I'm normally arguing the liberal side of most topics, I hope the SC rules against mandatory health care purchase. Not that I'm against universal healthcare. But I'm against the way healthcare is funded in general in the US. Too much money has been directed at it through the association with employers and IRS tax benefits, and the result is hyperinflation. I was hoping Obamacare would turn the HC industry on it's head a bit, but it simply reinforced the excess of cash going into the market sector.

However, if the SC does shoot down the mandate we will still be in a bad position WRT HC. So I'm not really having high hopes they shoot it down. Mainly on the fence as I'm against the govt ordering us to buy anything. Especially when I think it's an industry that getting too much of the GDP already.

cadunkle

03-27-2012 7:14 PM

Hopefully they end this crap, but it's just a drop in the bucket. Simple fact of the matter is you cannot require someone to purchase something at gunpoint simply for the fact that he is alive. It's immoral and a travesty to freedom, but so are most things our government does.

snyder

03-28-2012 8:37 AM

An interesting reply to an article I read on this yesterday went something like this: If this gets thru the SCOTUS, I can't WAIT For republicans to take over Senate and Presidency, then they can mandate that everyone buy a gun, or mandate that everyone get a job so that everyone has to pay taxes...etc
While it's an extreme scenario, it has to make even the most progressive liberals in support of universal HC, see that this is the WRONG way to do it and w/SCOTUS blessing, it pretty much blows the doors off of ANY limitations to what the government can force you to do. Because even if BHO got re-elected, at SOME point the tables would turn and conservatives would eventually be back in power, and the roadmap has been laid. It's still frustrating that the vote will likely STILL fall on party lines.

jhartt3

03-28-2012 8:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cadunkle
(Post 1740126)

Hopefully they end this crap, but it's just a drop in the bucket. Simple fact of the matter is you cannot require someone to purchase something at gunpoint simply for the fact that he is alive. It's immoral and a travesty to freedom, but so are most things our government does.

So then what are property taxes that go to the public school system and for roads etc. if it doesnt pass they can just make it a tax and socialize it then you're paying for their health insurance.

snyder

03-28-2012 8:45 AM

...plus the absence of a sever-ability clause? How on earth did that happen? Not that I'm complaining, I'd personally like the whole thing scrapped, and something new written picking out the parts that are actually doable and workable (pre-existing condition bans for example). But I'm amazed this 2000+page behemoth did not include a simple clause making the balance of the law stand if one or more parts are deemed unconstitutional. Even if they wiggle around the absence of a sever-ability clause, and let the rest of the bill stand, it's widely understood that the individual mandate is the pin in the grenade. the whole thing will implode and be completely un-fundable.

snyder

03-28-2012 8:46 AM

property taxes are a state thing, not federal. and you enter an agreement to pay the taxes by BUYING property.

fly135

03-28-2012 9:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snyder
(Post 1740211)

property taxes are a state thing, not federal. and you enter an agreement to pay the taxes by BUYING property.

Well.... you have to buy property because you have no inalienable right to exist anywhere if you don't buy or pay somebody.

And Cory,... nobody is putting a gun to your head for not buying HI. It's really just a tax. If you don't earn any money there is no punishment for not buying.

Also, the argument that the govt is going to make you get a job or make you buy a gun is not really interesting. The govt already has significant control over lots of aspects of your life. Making me buy a gun is the least of my worries. The govt puts people into indentured servitude already. It's called alimony. I consider it pretty serious that the govt enslaves one person unto another, yet the general population has no issue with it. It's all smoke and mirrors.

Keith529

03-28-2012 12:04 PM

I don't see how court ordered alimony compares to mandated healthcare. You have the choice to get married and if you have to get a divorce that again is your, or maybe your spouses, choice. Currently, I have the choice to not get healthcare just like I have the choice to enter into marriage.

fly135

03-28-2012 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith529
(Post 1740279)

I don't see how court ordered alimony compares to mandated healthcare. You have the choice to get married and if you have to get a divorce that again is your, or maybe your spouses, choice. Currently, I have the choice to not get healthcare just like I have the choice to enter into marriage.

You forgot that you have the choice to not get HI and then show up at the hospital and get free healthcare. Yes, alimony doesn't compare to mandated healthcare. That was my point.... it's far worse. Indentured servitude shouldn't even be a remote possibility. Yet our society can't see that it's a big deal although they think that their inalienable rights are compromised if they have to pay a small tax penalty for not buying HI.

So what violated your rights more? A tax penalty for not buying HI or forced to work the rest of your life to support someone where no contract or agreement was ever set on paper with any specific terms or expectation of such payments?

wake77

03-28-2012 1:09 PM

The individual mandate didn't strike the GOP as flat-out unconstitutional when they proposed it in the 90's, why is it now?

"In order to make coverage more accessible, Congress must do more, including passing legislation to: establish a national health insurance marketplace by giving individuals the freedom to shop for insurance plans across state lines; provide low-income families with $1,000 in direct contributions to a health savings account, along with a $2,000 advanced tax credit to purchase an HSA-eligible high-deductible health plan; make premiums for these plans tax deductible; provide tax rebates to small businesses that contribute to their employees’ HSAs; extend and expand grant funding to high-risk pools across the country; and require anyone who earns more than $50,000 a year to purchase health insurance or post a bond."

bakermatt

03-29-2012 8:24 AM

I would support Mandatory Health care! If everyone is insured, the healthy pay for the sick, bringing down the cost of health care!

Laker1234

03-29-2012 12:51 PM

Well, for one, this allows for insurance plans across state lines--an established national health insurance. Incorporate some tort reform and we may actually be on the right track to lowering costs. However, one of the problems with the Democrat's plan--besides being unconstitutional, no tort reform, and costly-is the outcome could be similar to the current housing crisis when they tried giving everyone a free house. The smaller companies will more than likely be gobbled up by the larger corporations--similar to what is happening in the banking industry--and then the taxpayer will be left with once again bailing "too big to fail" companies.

wake77

03-29-2012 12:54 PM

Tort reform didn't lower medical costs in Texas, so why is it so important when it comes to affordable health care?

Laker1234

03-30-2012 2:32 PM

I am not familiar with what happened in Texas but--in theory--tort reform may limit doctors' susceptibility to being named in frivolous cases by people looking to get something for nothing. Again—in theory—if insurance companies are not having to pay lawyers to represent doctors in cases where no the doctor did nothing wrong, their cost for malpractice insurance should be reduced. In addition, the cost to the patient may be reduced by the doctor not over testing in order to keep from being sued. Therefore, this should reduce the amount of frivolous lawsuits, so everyone saves money. Unfortunately, America has become a "sue happy" nation, so much time and money is wasted on unfounded lawsuits. I compare this to prisoners filing lawsuits over petty things. However, tort reform is only one small step that could possible reduce the cost of patient care. http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.c...n-tort-reform/ is a good article and http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.c...n-tort-reform/

^I never said that the laws "did no good", I said it did nothing to lower costs. Your article backs up that claim.

Laker1234

04-02-2012 8:52 AM

You're correct, Jeremy, my bad. I was under the impression the term "tort reform" was more encompassing than just placing a $250,000 limit on malpractice cases. To me, something needs to be done about the "ambulance"-chasing-just-to-make-a-buck-lawyers who sue doctors.

fly135

04-02-2012 8:56 AM

Tort reform is necessary for costs to go down. But it won't lower costs until something else is in place to drive them down. The problem with health insurance is that when everyone has to buy it there is no containment of costs. The only way to drive down prices is for customers to start exiting the market. There is no downward pressure for costs in heathcare.

The problem is that there is no mechanism in place for people to dump HI when it becomes too expensive. And there is no way to promote competition in the HC market when the source of money is guaranteed. If you want prices to go down then you need to take action to drive prices down. Tort reform is one action, but is not sufficient in itself to cause a change. The lower cost of malpractice insurance simply becomes profit for the HC provider.

Laker1234

04-02-2012 9:03 AM

This is more of what I was lead to beieve tort reform prevented. "In a general sense, tort reform advocates believe that an excess of the 15+ million lawsuits filed annually in the United States of America are “frivolous” and superfluous. This notion places blame on the foundation of the court system in America and the ability for any citizen to file a personal injury or tort claim in the hopes of seeking a monetary award. The problem, however, with tort reform lies within the true purpose of tort law; tort law serves to compensate victims for their losses and secondly the threat of liability or court action serves to deter future incidents of harm from occurring." I copied this from http://tort.laws.com/tort-reform